MilesPieri

Former commercials director Andrei Zvyagintsev's stunning film debut is the ideal antidote to all those twee American coming-of-age flicks. This beautiful and sometimes harrowing tale of two young boys on a road trip with a father who 'dissapeared' twelve years before has a surface simplicity that belies it's deeply complex heart. Or, perhaps it's the other way around? There are shades of 'Martin Guerre' to the story but the director, and his co-screenwriter Vladimir Moiseyenko, have created something quite fresh and unique. A quiet and contemplative journey that ends as enigmatically as it begins. The, unnamed, father (Konstantin Lavronenko) returns after more than a decade to the Russian village where the two boys and their mother ,Natalya Vdovina, (it's never clear whether the couple were ever married) reside. He takes his children on a journey, ostensibly a fishing trip, which appears fraught with minor mishaps – the car, and later a boat, break down, the fathers wallet is stolen from the boys etc. It's never clear to what degree the father is manipulating these events, or indeed what exactly his motives are. Does he genuinely care about his sons and want to spend the weekend attempting to 'bond' with them? Or is his desire to reach a remote island connected with the abandoned ruins of a house there? Whatever his motivation, dad has a unique line in 'tough love', which tends to manifest itself in a bloody nose or the threat of decapitation with an axe. The two boys, brought up by mother and granny aren't overly eager to be on the receiving end of their 'new' fathers affections, although the older of the two (Vladimir Garin, who tragically died in a drowning accident a fortnight after filming completed) seems to desperately want to believe that his father cares for him. They're suspicious, too, of where he's been for most of their lives yet they're cautious enough to keep their curiosity between themselves. It's not giving anything away to say that, from the outset, you're aware there's not going to be a happy ending to all this. What really impresses about The Return, aside from the beautiful, washed out cinematography and the pitch-perfect performances (the two, non-professional, boys are astoundingly good) is Zvyagintsev's awareness that there is no need to spoon feed all the 'facts' to his audience. The 'why's and the 'where's' are something we can decide for ourselves, as individuals. Zvyagintsev presents us with the bare facts of his tale and leaves the interpretation up to us. There's more to it than this, of course. For all its concentration on the minutiae of this week-long journey the film is absolutely riveting and ravishing to look at. Zvyagintsev leaves it to the viewer to decide whether what they've just seen is a deceptively simple tale or an overwhelmingly complex one. Whichever, it could well be a minor masterpiece.

The road to a cinematic Hitch-Hikers has been well documented as long and tortuous. What began as a BBC radio show way back in 1978 has seen incarnations as a series of novels, a TV show, interactive fiction and several stage versions. A film has been on the cards for at least two decades and now, at last, we have what Hitch-Hikers creator Douglas Adams always hoped would be the ultimate imagining of his SF-comedy. Let's get right to the point here, this movie is going to be a huge disappointment to the "trilogy's" many fans. The casual film-goer is unlikely to be too impressed either. It seems incredible that something that has languished in turnaround so long has come out so half-baked and semi-formed. Maybe the length of time it's taken to get this show on the road is much of the problem, though. Disney clearly spent a fair amount on this production (although the SFX are variable) and they've really tried to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The problem is it's all too rushed and confusing for the uninitiated yet severely lacking in true Hitch-Hikers spirit for aficionados. Bizarrely many of Adams best lines and jokes are left in - but without the punchlines. A good example is the, hugely truncated, opening where earthman Arthur Dent's house is to be demolished. Adams, of course, had this scene mirror the bigger picture of the bureaucracy-obsessed Vogon destruction of the Earth. Here this doesn't play out at all and the whole sequence falls flat. Another example is Ford Prefect's (Mos Def) constant use of his towel in moments of danger. Fans will know where this comes from but to anyone else it just looks like very desperate slapstick. A subplot, original to this movie, concerning the quest for a 'Point of view gun' is pointless and goes nowhere at all, seemingly added to give John Malcovich something to do in one of several wasted cameos. The late Adams himself is credited as co-author of the screenplay, and it would be fascinating to know just how much of the script can fairly be attributed to him. The movie isn't without it's pleasures. There are some nice touches such as the beautiful Magrathea interiors, an appearance from TV's Marvin and the original radio shows Arthur (Simon Jones) plus any fan is going to get goosebumps hearing The Eagles 'Journey of the Sorcerer' as we are first introduced to 'The Book' itself. Having said that, the 1981 BBC TV show, which Adams never much cared for, had far wittier graphics to illustrate the Guide than anything this film can muster up. The cast battle valiantly with a generally inane script and flat direction but in the end this just wasn't worth the time, effort and love than so many people spent on it over such a long period. It pains me to quote Marvin the Paranoid Android here but as far as The Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy goes - "I've seen it, it's rubbish."